The cosmological argument is an argument for the existence of a First Cause (or instead, an Uncaused cause) to the universe, and by extension is often used as an argument for the existence of an "unconditioned" or "supreme" being, usually then identified as God. It is traditionally known as an argument from universal causation, an argument from first cause, the causal argument or the argument from existence. Whichever term is employed, there are three basic variants of the argument, each with subtle yet important distinctions: the arguments from in causa (causality), in esse (essentiality), in fieri (becoming), and the argument from contingency.
The basic premise of all of these is that something caused the Universe to exist, and this First Cause must be God. It has been used by various theologians and philosophers over the centuries, from the ancient Greek Plato and Aristotle to the medieval St. Thomas Aquinas and beyond. It is also applied by the Spiritist doctrine as the main argument for the existence of God.
Contents |
Plato (c. 427–347 BC) and Aristotle (c. 384–322 BC) both posited first cause arguments, though each had certain notable caveats. Plato posited a basic argument (which Mostafa Dawoud disagrees with) in The Laws (Book X), in which he argued that motion in the world and the Cosmos was "imparted motion" that required some kind of "self-originated motion" to set it in motion and to maintain that motion.[1] Plato posited a "demiurge" of supreme wisdom and intelligence as the creator of the Cosmos in his work Timaeus.
Aristotle argued against the idea of a first cause, often confused with the idea of a "prime mover" or "unmoved mover" (πρῶτον κινοῦν ἀκίνητον or primus motor) in his Physics and Metaphysics.[2] Aristotle's famous argument was contrary to the atomist's depiction of a non-eternal cosmos which, he argued, would require an efficient first cause, a notion that Aristotle took to demonstrate a critical flaw in their reasoning. However, a non-eternal cosmos, with both a beginning and an end, would later come to reflect the prevalent theological beliefs in medieval Europe. By simply denying that an efficient first cause is problematic, being easily explained as the creative action of an omnipotent God, medieval theologians re-purposed and enhanced Aristotle's argument, as if the intention had been to prove God's existence. Like Plato, Aristotle believed in an eternal cosmos with no beginning and no end (which in turn follows Parmenides' famous statement that "nothing comes from nothing"). In what he called "first philosophy" or metaphysics, Aristotle did intend a theological correspondence between the prime mover and deity (presumably Zeus), functionally however, he provided an explanation for the apparent motion of the "fixed stars" (now understood as the daily rotation of the Earth). According to his theses, immaterial unmoved movers are eternal unchangeable beings that constantly think about thinking, but being immaterial, they're incapable of interacting with the cosmos and have no knowledge of what transpires therein. From an "aspiration or desire",[3] the celestial spheres, imitate that purely intellectual activity as best they can, by uniform circular motion. The unmoved movers inspiring the planetary spheres are no different in kind from the prime mover, they merely suffer a dependency of relation to the prime mover. Correspondingly, the motions of the planets are subordinate to the motion inspired by the prime mover in the sphere of fixed stars. Aristotle's natural theology admitted no creation or capriciousness from the immortal pantheon, but maintained a defense against dangerous charges of impiety.
Plotinus, a third-century Platonist, taught that the One transcendent absolute caused the universe to exist simply as a consequence of its existence - "creatio ex deo." His disciple Proclus stated 'The One is God'.
Centuries later, the Islamic philosopher Avicenna (c. 980–1037) inquired into the question of being, in which he distinguished between essence (Mahiat) and existence (Wujud). He argued that the fact of existence could not be inferred from or accounted for by the essence of existing things, and that form and matter by themselves could not originate and interact with the movement of the Universe or the progressive actualization of existing things. Thus, he reasoned that existence must be due to an agent cause that necessitates, imparts, gives, or adds existence to an essence. To do so, the cause must coexist with its effect and be an existing thing.[4]
Steven Duncan, writes that "it was first formulated by a Greek-speaking Syriac Christian neo-Platonist, John Philoponus." Who "claims to find a contradiction between the Greek pagan insistence on the eternity of the world and the Aristotelian rejection of the existence of any actual infinite." Referring to the argument as the "'Kalam' cosmological argument", Duncan asserts that it "received its fullest articulation at the hands of [medieval] Muslim and Jewish exponents of Kalam ("the use of reason by believers to justify the basic metaphysical presuppositions of the faith)."[5]
Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225–1274 ), a theologian in Medieval Europe, adapted the argument he found in his reading of Aristotle and Avicenna to form one of the most influential versions of the cosmological argument.[6] His conception of First Cause was the idea that the Universe must have been caused by something that was itself uncaused, which he asserted was God.
Many other philosophers and theologians have posited cosmological arguments both before and since Aquinas. The versions sampled in the following sections are representative of the most common derivations of the argument.
A version of the cosmological argument could be stated as follows:
According to the argument, the existence of the Universe requires an explanation, and the creation of the Universe by a First Cause, generally assumed to be God, is that explanation.
In light of the Big Bang theory, a stylized version of argument has emerged (sometimes called the Kalam cosmological argument, the following form of which was set forth by William Lane Craig[7]):
In the scholastic era, Aquinas formulated the "argument from contingency", following Aristotle in claiming that there must be something to explain why the Universe exists. Since the Universe could, under different circumstances, conceivably not exist (contingency), its existence must have a cause – not merely another contingent thing, but something that exists by necessity (something that must exist in order for anything else to exist).[8] In other words, even if the Universe has always existed, it still owes its existence to an Uncaused Cause,[9] Aquinas further said: "...and this we understand to be God."[10]
Aquinas's argument from contingency allows for the possibility of a Universe that has no beginning in time. It is a form of argument from universal causation. Aquinas observed that, in nature, there were things with contingent existences. Since it is possible for such things not to exist, there must be some time at which these things did not in fact exist. Thus, according to Aquinas, there must have been a time when nothing existed. If this is so, there would exist nothing that could bring anything into existence. Contingent beings, therefore, are insufficient to account for the existence of contingent beings: there must exist a necessary being whose non-existence is an impossibility, and from which the existence of all contingent beings is derived.
The German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz made a similar argument with his principle of sufficient reason in 1714. "There can be found no fact that is true or existent, or any true proposition," he wrote, "without there being a sufficient reason for its being so and not otherwise, although we cannot know these reasons in most cases." He formulated the cosmological argument succinctly: "Why is there something rather than nothing? The sufficient reason [...] is found in a substance which [...] is a necessary being bearing the reason for its existence within itself."[11]
The difference between the arguments from causation in fieri and in esse is a fairly important one. In fieri is generally translated as "becoming", while in esse is generally translated as "in essence". In fieri, the process of becoming, is similar to building a house. Once it is built, the builder walks away, and it stands on its own accord. (It may require occasional maintenance, but that is beyond the scope of the first cause argument.)
In esse (essence) is more akin to the light from a candle or the liquid in a vessel. George Hayward Joyce, SJ, explained that "...where the light of the candle is dependent on the candle's continued existence, not only does a candle produce light in a room in the first instance, but its continued presence is necessary if the illumination is to continue. If it is removed, the light ceases. Again, a liquid receives its shape from the vessel in which it is contained; but were the pressure of the containing sides withdrawn, it would not retain its form for an instant." This form of the argument is far more difficult to separate from a purely first cause argument than is the example of the house's maintenance above, because here the First Cause is insufficient without the candle's or vessel's continued existence.[12]
Thus, Leibniz' argument is in esse, while Aquinas' argument is both in fieri and in esse. This distinction is an excellent example of the difference between a deistic view (Leibniz) and a theistic view (Aquinas). As a general trend, the modern slants on the cosmological argument, including the Kalam argument, tend to lean very strongly towards an in fieri argument.
The argument, again, in its most common form, is this:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The Universe began to exist. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.
Several objections can be raised to the above formulation: First, quantum fluctuations have been observed and seem not to be caused by anything. Thus the first premise of the argument is considered untrue. Secondly, the notion that the "universe began to exist" is highly speculative at best. Proponents of this argument are guessing that the universe began to exist, but this guess is based on nothing other than our ignorance of what happened before the big bang. By definition, we cannot claim that the universe did not exist in some form prior to the big bang, if we have no clue of what happened prior to the big bang. It seems that "The universe began to exist" is an Argument from Ignorance. Thirdly, just like we don't know if the universe began to exist or not, we have no way of knowing whether anything that might have caused the universe, did itself start to exist. Thus, as per the structure of this argument, whatever allegedly "caused" the universe to start existing, is itself predicated on some entity external to itself having caused it. Hence, the question: If God created the universe, what created God? Some would say that nothing created God and that God is infinite in time and has always existed.
| Part of the series on: Corpus Aristotelicum |
| Logic (Organon): |
| Categories – Prior Analytics |
| Posterior Analytics |
| On Interpretation – Topics |
| Sophistical Refutations |
| Physics or Natural philosophy: |
| Physics – On the Heavens |
| On Generation and Corruption |
| Meteorology – On the Soul |
| History of Animals |
| Metaphysics: |
| Metaphysics |
| Ethics and Politics: |
| Nicomachean Ethics |
| Eudemian Ethics – Magna Moralia |
| On Virtues and Vices |
| Politics – Economics |
| Constitution of the Athenians |
| Rhetoric and Poetics: |
| Rhetoric – Poetics |
| Spurious Works: |
| On the Universe – Mechanics |
One objection to the argument is that it leaves open the question of why the First Cause is unique in that it does not require a cause. Proponents argue that the First Cause is exempt from having a cause, while opponents argue that this is special pleading or otherwise untrue.[13] A brief review of the first premise in both arguments above, however, shows that the first cause is exempt precisely because it did not begin to exist or because it is not contingent or finite. Thus claiming that there is special pleading on the part of the first cause essentially amounts to a rejection of the formulation of either of the first premises above. The problem with arguing for the First Cause's exemption is that it raises the question of why the First Cause is indeed exempt.[14]
Secondly, the premise of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori (inductive) reasoning, which is dependent on experience. David Hume highlighted this problem of induction and argued that causal relations were not true a priori (deductively). However as to whether inductive or deductive reasoning is more valuable still remains a matter of debate, with the general conclusion being that neither is prominent.[15] Even though causality applies to the known world, it does not necessarily apply to the universe at large. In other words, it is unwise to draw conclusions from an extrapolation of causality beyond experience.[13]
An objection against the theist implication of the proposition is that even if one accepts the argument as a proof of a First Cause, it does not identify that First Cause with God. The argument does not go on to ascribe to the First Cause some of the basic attributes commonly associated with, for instance, a theistic God, such as immanence or omnibenevolence.[14] Rather, it simply argues that a First Cause (e.g. the Big Bang, God, or an unarticulated First Cause) must exist.[16] It might be argued, however, that the Big Bang is not an acceptable first cause as the event clearly began and is quite finite. Hence the first premise in both formulations above seems to exclude this conclusion as a possibility.
Furthermore, even if one chooses to accept God as the First Cause, there is an argument that God's continued interaction with the Universe is not required. This is the foundation for beliefs such as deism that accept that a god created the Universe, but then ceased to have any further interaction with it.[17]
A causal loop is a form of predestination paradox arising where travel backwards in time is deemed a possibility. A sufficiently powerful entity in such a world would have the capacity to travel backwards in time to a point before its own existence, and to then create itself, thereby initiating everything which follows from it.
The usual reason which is given to refute the possibility of a causal loop is it requires that the loop as a whole be its own cause. Richard Hanley argues that causal loops are not logically, physically, or epistemically impossible: "[In timed systems,] the only possibly objectionable feature that all causal loops share is that coincidence is required to explain them."[18]
David Hume and later Paul Edwards have invoked a similar principle in their criticisms of the cosmological argument. Rowe has called the principle the Hume-Edwards principle:[19]
If the existence of every member of a set is explained, the existence of that set is thereby explained.
Nevertheless, David E. White argues that the notion of an infinite causal regress providing a proper explanation is fallacious.[20] Furthermore Demea states that even if the succession of causes is infinite, the whole chain still requires a cause.[21] To explain this, suppose there exists a causal chain of infinite contingent beings. If one asks the question, "Why are there any contingent beings at all?", it won’t help to be told that "There are contingent beings because other contingent beings caused them." That answer would just presuppose additional contingent beings. An adequate explanation of why some contingent beings exist would invoke a different sort of being, a necessary being that is not contingent.[22] A response might suppose each individual is contingent but the infinite chain as a whole is not; or the whole infinite causal chain to be its own cause.
The IUT claims that the physical world is governed by an infinite universal causality.[23] Severinsen argues that there is an "infinite" and complex causal structure.[24] White tried to introduce an argument “without appeal to the principle of sufficient reason and without denying the possibility of an infinite causal regress”.[25]
Saint Thomas Aquinas’ argument from contingency applies even if the universe had no beginning, but it would still have to be sustained in being at any particular moment by God. According to Aquinas, the universe cannot, at any particular moment, be causing itself. Even if causes and effects in the universe looped back on themselves, they would still, at any particular moment, be contingent and thus would have to be caused by God. They could not be causing themselves.[26]
The theory is said to assume many aspects of how the universe came to be without scientific analysis, rather a monotheistic religious outlook. Most scientists argue that "God" is not a scientifically proven cause, considering current acceptable evidence does not verify a deity’s existence.
Some cosmologists and physicists argue that a challenge to the cosmological argument is the nature of time, "One finds that time just disappears from the Wheeler–DeWitt equation" - Carlo Rovelli. The Big Bang theory states that it is the point in which all dimensions came into existence, the start of both space and time.[27] Then, the question "What was there before the Universe?" makes no sense; the concept of "before" becomes meaningless when considering a situation without time.[27] This has been put forward by J. Richard Gott III, James E. Gunn, David N. Schramm, and Beatrice M. Tinsley, who said that asking what occurred before the Big Bang is like asking what is north of the North Pole.[27] However, some cosmologists and physicists do attempt to investigate what could have occurred before the Big Bang, using such scenarios as the collision of membranes to give a cause for the Big Bang.[28]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
´